Topic:
Sun likely to be 10 billion years old while Jupiter only 5; Chapt22 a new age measuring tool in astronomy: density of actinides & iron in a body #1607 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Replies:
2
Last Post:
Jun 17, 2013 4:28 AM

Re: Sun likely to be 10 billion years old while Jupiter only 5; Chapt22 a new age measuring tool in astronomy: density of actinides & iron in a body #1607 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted:
Jun 17, 2013 3:40 AM

On 06/17/2013 03:06 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:> It is good to see that astronomy has a new method of telling the age> of astro bodies that is not a fakery method such as the Doppler> redshift.>> --- quoting from> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PASJ...59L..15A>> The thorium abundance of the red giant COS 82 in the Ursa Minor dwarf> spheroidal galaxy was determined based on the high-resolution> spectrum. This is the first detection of actinides in an extragalactic> object.> --- end quoting --->> It makes commonsense that the best means of age reckoning in geology> is via radioactive decay, and that should then be the best means for> astronomy also. It is just that astronomers have only now begun using> this age method. And it is good to see that they can measure the age> of other galaxies.>> I predict that as more and more of these radioactive decay ages for> stars and galaxies are reported, that an upheaval in all the old> methods will occur and the old methods will be tossed out as phony or> inadequate.>>> --- quoting in part from> http://kencroswell.com/ThoriumUrsaMinor.html> When Aoki and colleagues compare the star's thorium level with that of> stable r-process elements, such as europium, they find a lower thorium-> to-europium ratio than in the Sun. Thus, more of the star's original> thorium has decayed, so the star must be older than the Sun.> Aoki's team derives an age for COS 82 which matches that of an r-> process-enhanced star in the Milky Way's halo named CS 22892-052,> which is 12 or 13 billion years old. This, in turn, suggests the Ursa> Minor dwarf is as old as the Galactic halo.> --- end quoting --->> Now I am going to argue contrary to both Aoki and Croswell above, in> that their argument or reasoning is not based on Dirac's new> radioactivities, and when we apply Dirac's new radioactivities, we get> a very surprising end result, that the Sun has an age of about 10> billion years old.>> What Aoki and Croswell are debating is how our Sun has its iron> abundance delivered to the Sun by supernovas. Well, in the Dirac new> radioactivities theory, you see, the universe itself creates the> elements inside the astro body, and they are not created by random> supernovas. Just as Earth and Sun, everyday have cosmic rays and> cosmic gamma ray bursts that buildup the elements inside of Sun and> Earth, each and every day, and not due to some ancient supernova dust> collecting to make the Sun or Earth.>> So, the fact that these stars are of the order of 12 or 13 billion> years old and have a iron depletion relative to the Sun's iron, that> the Sun is at least 10 billion years old.>> Now the age of Earth is measured by radioactive decay such as U238> which has half life of about 4.5 billion years and that samples of> U238 found on Earth and meteorites is about half U238 and half lead,> indicating it is 4.5 billion years old. Now that is under the> presumption of those elements in existence without Dirac new> radioactivities. Dirac would say that Earth and Sun started out as a> ball of hydrogen and with the accretion of more cosmic rays and gamma> ray bursts that ball will increase in numbers and size and in elements> of higher atomic number. So after a billion years of Dirac new> radioactivities, you have more mass and higher atomic numbered> elements. After a billion years you would have elements from hydrogen> up to iron, and after 5 billion years you would start to see elements> forming of lead, thorium, uranium. After 10 billion years you would> have planets like Earth that are rich in thorium and uranium.> So in this viewpoint of astronomy we throw out the quant and silly> notion that elements beyond iron, all had to come from supernova. I> would pack up all astronomy professors and send them to a summer> school logic camp, since they think that the rare events of supernova> have caused a cosmic blender of the elements to reside in all the> galaxies, stars and planets.>> The uniformity and blended mixture of the elements that reside in> planets, stars and galaxies is not due to rare events of supernova,> but due to the daily Dirac new radioactivities.>> So the fact that the Sun is iron rich, and that the star COS 82 in the> Ursa Minor galaxy dating it to be 12 or 13 billion years old, is> strong evidence that the Sun is at least 10 billion years old.>> Previously I wrote that the density of the actinides tells us the age> of an astro body, but after reading these two above reports, I can> refine my logic, in that the density of iron per the lightweight> elements-- hydrogen, helium in a astro body is a quick determinant of> age.>> So looks favorable to the idea that the Sun and inner planets are> about 10 billion years old whereas Jupiter and the gas giant outer> planets are 5 billion years old.>> Now critics would point out that the moons of Jupiter and Saturn> appear to be dense in iron, but if you research that density, it is> not so dense. And those satellites were likely to have been asteroids> captured and then by Dirac new radioactivities, growing into moons.

Archimedes, you mention: "Dirac's new radioactivities".Which Dirac do you mean? Paul Dirac, the pioneer ofquantum mechanics, is no longer with us ...